CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Park Mount Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found risk assessments, environmental checks and medicines systems in place, although some people and staff said staffing could sometimes be tight when staff were off sick.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People were offered meals matching their choices and dietary needs, and were supported with healthcare appointments and referrals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, respectful care. People were involved in their care plans, and staff supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, interests, routines and preferences. Activities were varied, complaints were handled through the home's process, and staff were trained in end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits and action plans, and people and families were asked for feedback. Inspectors found that the manager acted on feedback and notified CQC about reportable events.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed for dementia-friendly surroundings.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 19 March 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked records, including medicines, care plans, complaints, staffing and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit, safe medicines processes, kind interactions, personalised care plans and suitable support with food, healthcare and end of life care.
Some improvements were suggested. These included adding clearer signs and more contrasting decoration for people living with dementia. Inspectors also asked the home to review the risks of some unlocked communal areas. The home was rated Good at its previous inspection in September 2016, so the overall rating stayed the same.
Safe medicines
The electronic medicines system had reduced errors. The manager checked daily that medicines had been given and stock balances were correct.
“The new system had reduced the amount of medication errors.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and kindness. Staff knocked before entering rooms and asked permission.
“Throughout the duration of our inspection, we observed staff treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's backgrounds, hobbies, interests, choices and preferred routines. Activities included personalised one-to-one support.
“Information within people's care plans was highly personalised.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, action plans and feedback to identify and make improvements.
“There was evidence that the service listened to people and acted on their opinions.” from the report
Dementia-friendly surroundings
needs fixingInspectors said clearer signs and more contrasting decoration could help people living with dementia find their way around more independently.
“We raised at the time of our inspection that more directional signage and contrasting décor on each floor could help people coordinate their way around more independently.” from the report
Risk of unlocked areas
needs fixingInspectors were concerned that unlocked communal areas could present a danger to people living with dementia if they were not supervised. The manager agreed to review the risk assessment.
“We raised that these areas might present a danger to people living with dementia if they were left unsupervised in them.” from the report
Staffing when people are off sick
minorSome people and staff said there were sometimes not enough staff when staff were off sick. Inspectors checked rotas and observations and found enough staff on duty during the visit.
“One person told us there was sometimes not enough staff.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to directional signs and contrasting decoration for people living with dementia?
- 02How have you reviewed the risk assessment for the unlocked communal areas, and when are they supervised?
- 03How do you ensure there are enough staff when people are off sick?
- 04How do you monitor whether the new electronic medicines system continues to reduce errors?
- 05How are people's personal interests and previous skills used when planning activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Park Mount Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staffing and record-keeping issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 September 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care, looked at four care plans, and checked records including medicines, staffing, recruitment, training, complaints and safety checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe and well cared for. Staff understood people's needs, treated them with kindness and respect, and provided personalised care. Food choices, activities and access to health professionals were also viewed positively.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant standards at the time of the inspection, although they identified some issues that needed attention.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff build trusting relationships and provide care in a dignified way. People were treated with patience and compassion.
“All the interactions we observed and overheard throughout the inspection were caring, kind and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's preferences, histories, likes, dislikes and care needs. Staff knew this information and used it in practice.
“Each plan was personalised and captured the needs of the individual.” from the report
Good food choices
The home offered a flexible menu, special diets and alternatives. Staff supported people to eat and drink patiently and checked their preferences.
“The menu provided a good variety of food to the people using the service.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose activities, quieter pastimes and where to spend their time. The manager monitored attendance and people's enjoyment.
“There were organised activities each afternoon which varied from entertainers to armchair activities” from the report
Occasional staffing shortages
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing. The manager had identified the need for more staff and was recruiting, with agency cover also being considered.
“Staff, people living in the home and relatives were reporting occasional shortages, however recruitment was in process and the manager was taking action to address this.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
needs fixingInspectors found that medicine storage temperatures were not being recorded every day. The manager later confirmed that daily checks had started.
“We noted that temperatures were not been taken every day of the medication storage.” from the report
Whistleblowing policy
minorThe whistleblowing policy did not include contact details for reporting concerns outside the organisation. The manager agreed to update it.
“However this did not contain contacts for external reporting.” from the report
Food and drink targets
needs fixingCare plans recorded monitoring for people at nutritional risk, but did not state the optimum amount each person should eat or drink to stay healthy.
“We did note that the care plans did not contain the optimum amount that each person should be eating or drinking in order to remain healthy.” from the report
Family meetings
minorResidents' and relatives' meetings were held, but one relative felt they were less regular than before. Ask how often these meetings now take place.
“One relative commented that they did not feel that they were as regular as in the past.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are normally on duty on each shift, and what happens when staffing levels are short?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures recorded every day, and can we see recent records?
- 03How do you record each person's required food and drink amounts and respond if they are not eating or drinking enough?
- 04How can relatives raise concerns outside the home, and what external contacts are included in the updated whistleblowing policy?
- 05How often are residents' and relatives' meetings held now, and how are actions from those meetings followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions; inspectors reviewed four care plans and spoke with 11 people, four relatives and 10 staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Park Mount Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.